The Founding Fathers argument

We often hear Christians insisting that America was built on Christianity, or that this is a "Christian Nation." Bullshit. Most of the influential members of this group were deists at most.

Here also is a really interesting comment from Reddit, from the user somn:

Don't play the quote game, go right to the heart of the matter.

The political and economic theories on which the US was built come from the Enlightenment. The enlightenment explicitly rejected religion as a basis for political and economic theories.

Follow up by inquiring where in the Bible it speaks of individual liberties and free market economics? Show me a single reference to democracy. Now, ctrl+f and search the words "kingdom", "king", and "lord". Tell me, if you were to base a government on the Bible, would it be a representative democracy or a monarchy?

Talk to me about what you believe

I'm interested in what people believe. I appreciate Matt Dillahunty's perspective: tell me what you believe and why you believe it. I think this posture provides a great way for believers to frame their presentations, and it demonstrates the real position of skepticism. It's a reaction to claims made by believers.

When we talk about your beliefs, however, I'll not be convinced of the truth of your claims by arguments from authority, arguments from ignorance, or arguments from personal experience. Your life experience is not sufficient to demonstrate the truth of your claims to someone else. Likewise, the fact that you can't think of a better explanation for something doesn't demonstrate that your claim is true. Finally, appeals to religious authority hold no sway for those who do not accept that authority.

There are other logical fallacies, but those three are the ones that will stop our discussion in its tracks. Let's be open and honest about the issues we discuss. If we are, we'll have a much better chance at creating a mutual understanding.

Here's a really enlightening statement made by Christopher Hitchens in a debate vs. Frank Turek.

It's an insult to be told that without superstition or the supernatural we wouldn't know how to treat one another well, or know the difference between right and wrong.

The emancipation of humanity, which has taken a very great deal of time, just as the expansion of our life expectancy had to be worked on very hard. When it was left just to god to decide these things, we didn't live very long, couldn't cure any diseases, and didn't know that our planet wasn't the center of the universe. But once this emancipation has begun, I think it is unstoppable. And the emancipation of hunanity begins when you throw off the idea that you live in a celestial North Korea, and that only a dictator can give you permission to think, behave well, or act morally.

I really like the connection between life expcetancy and the progress of unbelief. After creeping up very slowly over tens of thousands of years, from say 25 to 35 years, life expectancy has nearly doubled in the past 150 years. Throwing off the shackles of superstition and looking at the world scientifically has granted us more life than humanity ever experienced as when the world was ruled by gods. I think it's conceivable that the next 150 years could see another doubling of life expectancy. Imagine living in a time when we could expect live to be 150 years old, running marathons into our 120's. Such a gift of life will not be possible with societal adherence to a theistic worldview. We have to move beyond dogma to reach our full potential.

One thing that really bugs me

I really enjoy discussing religion with people who are open to an honest discussion. Even if we don't agree on much, it's fascinating to see how differently we can perceive the world around us.

What I can't stand is people who profess an expertise in religious matters without having spent much time bothering to understand the basic arguments. There's a rabbi posting on Huffpost (okay, not much credibility there, but that's another discussion) who has written an open letter to atheists. He writes:

The first point I'd like to explore is that there really are no true atheists. It seems to me that in order to claim with certainty that there is no God you would have to have knowledge of the totality of the universe - seen and unseen - and I don't think any of you guys are ready to make that claim.

Perhaps Rabbi Jacobs is honestly mistaken about the claims of atheism, in which case he will most certainly acknowledge his error, rethink his position, and rewrite the missive with some humility. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that a Rabbi wouldn't understand the basic position of atheists. If the second case is true, he's simply lying to readers who don't have a strong understanding of the arguments.

A serious person will at least go through the trouble of understanding the arguments before wading into these waters. Maybe Rabbi Jacobs will surprise me and reassess his letter and try again. If not, he's just another in a long line of deceitful religious leaders who are afraid of having honest discussions.

A Christmas Letter from Ricky Gervais

Ricky's Christmas Letter


This letter is both funny and eloquent. Along with Tim Minchin's White Wine in the Sun, this sentiment represents my own views of Christmas and religion quite well.

I've been looking for this quote for some time now. I couldn't remember the source until I ran across it serendipitously. The quote poignantly captures the state of mind that I've been mired in for so long. If I'm not able to "come out" soon to my family and friends, I'm afraid I'll lose my sense of self.

No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.

-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, Chapter XX: The Minister in a Maze

Civil Rights for Homosexuals

The idea of America is that people should be free to live their lives without interference from an oppressive government. So long as we don't harm others, "the pursuit of happiness," however we define it individually, is the central tenet of our freedom.

Gays aren't seeking special treatment; they're seeking equality under the law. Right now there are special rules in place to specifically exclude homosexuals from the benefits of civil society. The repeal of these bigoted rules is the goal here, not the establishment of privileges that the larger community does not have.

It's our patriotic duty to demand equality for all. Historically we've had this discussion regarding women's rights, the end of slavery, and the civil rights movement in the 1960's. In each case, hindsight offers a very clear perspective that discrimination is unethical and immoral. At some point we have to embrace a true equality for all. It's about time we realized it.